Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : Courts are divided on whether the DRP-specific deadline under Section 144C(13) overrides the general assessment time bar in Sectio...
Income Tax : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : A summary of prosecution offences under Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act (Sections 275A to 280), detailing the rigorous imprison...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that loan repayment cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The addition was deleted as i...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : Reassessment proceedings was invalid for a notice issued beyond three years without the sanction of the prescribed higher authorit...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that unsigned excel sheets without supporting evidence cannot justify additions. It ruled that absence of corrob...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deletes Section 69 additions holding that third-party excel sheets and statements without corroborative evidence lack ...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
Tribunal held that assessment was void because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, confirming that such omission cannot be cured and invalidates entire assessment.
The Court held that the search was valid after reviewing the recorded reasons and information. It ruled that jurisdiction existed under Section 132 and that challenges to procedural aspects did not invalidate the search.
The Tribunal examined alleged bogus payments to 27 sub-contractors treated as undisclosed income. While the Assessing Officer made large additions, the assessee provided affidavits confirming genuineness. The ruling partly allowed the appeals, stressing careful verification of evidence rather than assumptions.
ITAT Delhi ruled that additions under section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material specific to the assessee. All unbooked commission additions for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 were deleted.
ITAT held that additions under section 153A cannot be made if no incriminating material is found at the assessee’s premises; third-party documents should be invoked via section 153C.
ITAT Jaipur clarified that penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires proper examination of evidence and explanation by the assessee before imposition. Mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income.
Tribunal holds that surrendered LTCG cannot be treated as undisclosed income when fully recorded in books and supported by verifiable documents. Penalty under section 271AAB was therefore not leviable.
The Tribunal held that a cash ledger found during a third-party search could not trigger Section 153C when the assessee’s name was absent. It ruled that additions fail without a direct link to the assessee.
The Department could not produce a single document seized from the assessee, relying only on third-party statements, which are not incriminating material. The JCIT’s same-day clearance of multiple assessments without analysis led to the assessments being quashed.
The JCIT granted approval despite receiving only draft orders and no supporting evidence, demonstrating a mechanical process. The Tribunal held that such superficial approval violates judicial standards, leading to the quashing of all assessments.
